rayuan sivil no. w-04-690-2010 antara david abraham samson paul

(f) There was no evidence produced to show that the
appellant had notified MTUC that the monies held in
his client’s account were withdrawn towards payment
of costs and fees.
The High Court at the hearing of the appellant’s application to set
aside the Disciplinary Board order upheld the Board’s decision and
concluded that the Disciplinary Board’s findings of misconduct was
supported by the evidence and that the appellant breached the
provisions of the SPA in the manner in which he retained and deducted
the monies for his legal fees. In short there was concurrent findings by
the High Court.
Learned Counsel for the appellant in the appeal before us
submitted that the nub of the issue for determination was whether the
appellant was entitled to set off the three (3) bills of cost which he had
rendered to the MTUC – if he was entitled to do so then the MTUC’s
complaint and subsequent findings of misconduct on the part of the
appellant cannot be sustained. It is the submission of learned Counsel
that based on the evidence placed before the Committee and the Court
below the Committee erred is not finding that the appellant has the right
of set off.
In support of his submission on a solicitor’s right of set off Learned
Counsel for the appellant adverted to the following evidence adduced
before the Disciplinary Committee.
(a) The letter dated 22.10.92 from the appellant to MTUC
confirming an agreement that appellant’s fees and
7